nice try
that would result in an absolutely hilarious situation in the us

vote with 16, buy your first gun with 18

and your first beer with 21

Pelosi is ruining the democrat party

I'd rather see the vote requirement go to 21

If people are adults at 18 and can be tried as adults and shipped off to war they definitely deserve the right to vote at 18

do you want 16 year olds going to war?

Nope I'm against conscription for all people

do you think a 16 year should go to war?

the alleged climate change 'fearmongering' and 'panic' is just a lazy narrative of science deniers, pure climate change 'sceptics' propaganda, fueled by the same corporations that paid to not only hold back information, but also actively engaged in undermining research in that field (inb4 you hilariously claim that's a conspiracy theory again, despite the long list of links i provided last time i educated you on the matter, exposing your cluelessness), to allow hacks like yourself to pretend they have a leg to stand on, pointing to 'the science not being 100% reliable'.

from someone regularly fearmongering about 'replacement' and 'invasion' narratives (just like your nzl buddy), it's outright hilarious that you would label the warnings and movements to act NOW, concerning an issue that already has severe real life consequences (increase of severe weather events, rising sea levels, invasive species...) costing us trillions annually, as 'panic'.
in reality, the best we can do is take immediate action to LIMIT those consequences, not more - but hey, 'someone made a model or prediction that wasn't 100% accurate, so how can we know if it's really time to act', right? 'it's impossible to perfectly determine the exact scope of consequences and costs, trying to understand a system with literally millions of variables influencing it, therefore we can just dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus about the trend and the equally strong agreement that we have to act NOW to prevent the worst' - embrace the anti-intellectualism...

is making up fake arguments about things that nobody here has ever said everything you can do?
looks like it, not even interested in a debate

oh and btw, the replacement process you like to mock is an actual mathematic fact

This post was edited by ampoo on Mar 17 2019 06:49pm

unfortunately, this overwhelming scientific consensus has a bad track record:
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

-----

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
June 30, 1989

"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."


"He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees."

-----

so back in 1989, the director of the UN Environment Program said that the global warming trends would become irreversible by the year 2000, and that even the most conservative scientists agree that even radical action could not stop an increase in global temperatures of about 3 degrees.

no meaningful action was taken in 89 or 90, the global population has grown dramatically since then, consumption levels and emissions have risen dramatically. the year 2000 has passed, and apparently the irreversible tipping points were not only not triggered by then, they seemingly havent been triggered yet by now, the year 2019, either if we were to believe the current warnings about how "immediate and large-scale action is necessary to prevent crossing tipping points".

back in 89, the chief UN environmental scientists were warning that an increase in the global temperature by about 3 degrees would be inevitable according to even the most conservative scientists, yet 27 years later, in 2016, the UN-backed Paris climate accord operates under the assumption that the world can contain global warming to 2 or even 1.5 degrees if only enough money is thrown at the problem by the industrialized countries.

-----

now, I wouldnt entirely rule out the possibility that the scientists were alarmistic back in 1989 and blowing things out of proportion in an attempt to coerce the world to act immediately, while they are honest and telling the pure truth right now, 30 years later. but how likely is that?

I hope I'll not be put to the stake for blasphemy for questioning the "overwhelming scientific consensus" (when it comes to the urgency of the problem, not its mere existence) when similar overwhelming consensuses have been so farcically wrong in the past.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 18 2019 12:18am